Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems

K. R. Stackhouse-Lawson, C. A. Rotz, J. W. Oltjen, F. M. Mitloehner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Beef production is a recognized source of greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions; however, little information exists on the net emissions from beef production systems. A partial life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) to estimate GHG and NH3 emissions from representative beef production systems in California. The IFSM is a process-level farm model that simulates crop growth, feed production and use, animal growth, and the return of manure nutrients back to the land to predict the environmental impacts and economics of production systems. Ammonia emissions are determined by summing the emissions from animal housing facilities, manure storage, fi eld applied manure, and direct deposits of manure on pasture and rangeland. All important sources and sinks of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are predicted from primary and secondary emission sources. Primary sources include enteric fermentation, manure, cropland used in feed production, and fuel combustion. Secondary emissions occur during the production of resources used on the farm, which include fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, and purchased animals. The carbon footprint is the net exchange of all GHG in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units per kg of HCW produced. Simulated beef production systems included cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot phases for the traditional British beef breeds and calf ranch and feedlot phases for Holstein steers. An evaluation of differing production management strategies resulted in ammonia emissions ranging from 98 ± 13 to 141 ± 27 g/kg HCW and carbon footprints of 10.7 ± 1.4 to 22.6 ± 2.0 kg CO2e/kg HCW. Within the British beef production cycle, the cow-calf phase was responsible for 69 to 72% of total GHG emissions with 17 to 27% from feedlot sources. Holstein steers that entered the beef production system as a by-product of dairy production had the lowest carbon footprint because the emissions associated with their mothers were primarily attributed to milk rather than meat production. For the Holstein system, the feedlot phase was responsible for 91% of the total GHG emission, while the calf-ranch phase was responsible for 7% with the remaining 2% from transportation. This simulation study provides baseline emissions data for California beef production systems and indicates where mitigation strategies can be most effective in reducing emissions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4641-4655
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of animal science
Volume90
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Fingerprint

Carbon Footprint
carbon footprint
Ammonia
production technology
beef
ammonia
Manure
Gases
feedlots
animal manures
greenhouse gases
calves
Carbon Dioxide
farms
Holstein
ranching
Animal Housing
greenhouse gas emissions
Electricity
Dairy Products

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Food Science
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Genetics

Cite this

Stackhouse-Lawson, K. R., Rotz, C. A., Oltjen, J. W., & Mitloehner, F. M. (2012). Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems. Journal of animal science, 90(12), 4641-4655. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4653
Stackhouse-Lawson, K. R. ; Rotz, C. A. ; Oltjen, J. W. ; Mitloehner, F. M. / Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems. In: Journal of animal science. 2012 ; Vol. 90, No. 12. pp. 4641-4655.
@article{c0ce51997dec40f3b92ac8264dc8b0c5,
title = "Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems",
abstract = "Beef production is a recognized source of greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions; however, little information exists on the net emissions from beef production systems. A partial life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) to estimate GHG and NH3 emissions from representative beef production systems in California. The IFSM is a process-level farm model that simulates crop growth, feed production and use, animal growth, and the return of manure nutrients back to the land to predict the environmental impacts and economics of production systems. Ammonia emissions are determined by summing the emissions from animal housing facilities, manure storage, fi eld applied manure, and direct deposits of manure on pasture and rangeland. All important sources and sinks of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are predicted from primary and secondary emission sources. Primary sources include enteric fermentation, manure, cropland used in feed production, and fuel combustion. Secondary emissions occur during the production of resources used on the farm, which include fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, and purchased animals. The carbon footprint is the net exchange of all GHG in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units per kg of HCW produced. Simulated beef production systems included cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot phases for the traditional British beef breeds and calf ranch and feedlot phases for Holstein steers. An evaluation of differing production management strategies resulted in ammonia emissions ranging from 98 ± 13 to 141 ± 27 g/kg HCW and carbon footprints of 10.7 ± 1.4 to 22.6 ± 2.0 kg CO2e/kg HCW. Within the British beef production cycle, the cow-calf phase was responsible for 69 to 72{\%} of total GHG emissions with 17 to 27{\%} from feedlot sources. Holstein steers that entered the beef production system as a by-product of dairy production had the lowest carbon footprint because the emissions associated with their mothers were primarily attributed to milk rather than meat production. For the Holstein system, the feedlot phase was responsible for 91{\%} of the total GHG emission, while the calf-ranch phase was responsible for 7{\%} with the remaining 2{\%} from transportation. This simulation study provides baseline emissions data for California beef production systems and indicates where mitigation strategies can be most effective in reducing emissions.",
author = "Stackhouse-Lawson, {K. R.} and Rotz, {C. A.} and Oltjen, {J. W.} and Mitloehner, {F. M.}",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2527/jas.2011-4653",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "90",
pages = "4641--4655",
journal = "Journal of Animal Science",
issn = "0021-8812",
publisher = "American Society of Animal Science",
number = "12",

}

Stackhouse-Lawson, KR, Rotz, CA, Oltjen, JW & Mitloehner, FM 2012, 'Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems', Journal of animal science, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 4641-4655. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2011-4653

Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems. / Stackhouse-Lawson, K. R.; Rotz, C. A.; Oltjen, J. W.; Mitloehner, F. M.

In: Journal of animal science, Vol. 90, No. 12, 01.12.2012, p. 4641-4655.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Carbon footprint and ammonia emissions of california beef production systems

AU - Stackhouse-Lawson, K. R.

AU - Rotz, C. A.

AU - Oltjen, J. W.

AU - Mitloehner, F. M.

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Beef production is a recognized source of greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions; however, little information exists on the net emissions from beef production systems. A partial life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) to estimate GHG and NH3 emissions from representative beef production systems in California. The IFSM is a process-level farm model that simulates crop growth, feed production and use, animal growth, and the return of manure nutrients back to the land to predict the environmental impacts and economics of production systems. Ammonia emissions are determined by summing the emissions from animal housing facilities, manure storage, fi eld applied manure, and direct deposits of manure on pasture and rangeland. All important sources and sinks of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are predicted from primary and secondary emission sources. Primary sources include enteric fermentation, manure, cropland used in feed production, and fuel combustion. Secondary emissions occur during the production of resources used on the farm, which include fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, and purchased animals. The carbon footprint is the net exchange of all GHG in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units per kg of HCW produced. Simulated beef production systems included cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot phases for the traditional British beef breeds and calf ranch and feedlot phases for Holstein steers. An evaluation of differing production management strategies resulted in ammonia emissions ranging from 98 ± 13 to 141 ± 27 g/kg HCW and carbon footprints of 10.7 ± 1.4 to 22.6 ± 2.0 kg CO2e/kg HCW. Within the British beef production cycle, the cow-calf phase was responsible for 69 to 72% of total GHG emissions with 17 to 27% from feedlot sources. Holstein steers that entered the beef production system as a by-product of dairy production had the lowest carbon footprint because the emissions associated with their mothers were primarily attributed to milk rather than meat production. For the Holstein system, the feedlot phase was responsible for 91% of the total GHG emission, while the calf-ranch phase was responsible for 7% with the remaining 2% from transportation. This simulation study provides baseline emissions data for California beef production systems and indicates where mitigation strategies can be most effective in reducing emissions.

AB - Beef production is a recognized source of greenhouse gas (GHG) and ammonia (NH3) emissions; however, little information exists on the net emissions from beef production systems. A partial life cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the Integrated Farm System Model (IFSM) to estimate GHG and NH3 emissions from representative beef production systems in California. The IFSM is a process-level farm model that simulates crop growth, feed production and use, animal growth, and the return of manure nutrients back to the land to predict the environmental impacts and economics of production systems. Ammonia emissions are determined by summing the emissions from animal housing facilities, manure storage, fi eld applied manure, and direct deposits of manure on pasture and rangeland. All important sources and sinks of methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide are predicted from primary and secondary emission sources. Primary sources include enteric fermentation, manure, cropland used in feed production, and fuel combustion. Secondary emissions occur during the production of resources used on the farm, which include fuel, electricity, machinery, fertilizer, and purchased animals. The carbon footprint is the net exchange of all GHG in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units per kg of HCW produced. Simulated beef production systems included cow-calf, stocker, and feedlot phases for the traditional British beef breeds and calf ranch and feedlot phases for Holstein steers. An evaluation of differing production management strategies resulted in ammonia emissions ranging from 98 ± 13 to 141 ± 27 g/kg HCW and carbon footprints of 10.7 ± 1.4 to 22.6 ± 2.0 kg CO2e/kg HCW. Within the British beef production cycle, the cow-calf phase was responsible for 69 to 72% of total GHG emissions with 17 to 27% from feedlot sources. Holstein steers that entered the beef production system as a by-product of dairy production had the lowest carbon footprint because the emissions associated with their mothers were primarily attributed to milk rather than meat production. For the Holstein system, the feedlot phase was responsible for 91% of the total GHG emission, while the calf-ranch phase was responsible for 7% with the remaining 2% from transportation. This simulation study provides baseline emissions data for California beef production systems and indicates where mitigation strategies can be most effective in reducing emissions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84882732746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84882732746&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2527/jas.2011-4653

DO - 10.2527/jas.2011-4653

M3 - Article

C2 - 22952361

AN - SCOPUS:84882732746

VL - 90

SP - 4641

EP - 4655

JO - Journal of Animal Science

JF - Journal of Animal Science

SN - 0021-8812

IS - 12

ER -